Sermon Tone Analysis

THE MEANING OF THE MIRACLES

 

Dr.

Henry M. Morris co-author of The Genesis Flood spoke to the student body at DTS.

In an effort to distinguish between Class A and Class B miracles.

*Dr.

Morris told the true story of a young pilot* named Tom (now with Missionary Aviation Fellowship) who was flying at 30,000 feet when his plane exploded.

All in the plane were killed except Tom.

As Tom was plummeting to the earth, he pulled the rip cord, but his chute failed to open.

At the last minute, the chute did open but it was in shreds, hardly breaking the speed of his fall.

Meanwhile, a Christian woman was standing in her drive watching this horrifying scene.

Knowing he was in desperate trouble, the woman prayed for his safe descent.

Tom, needless to say, was praying, too.

Tom landed virtually at the feet of the woman.

Looking up, they saw that the ropes of his parachute had caught in two trees, breaking his fall and lowering him gently to the ground.

The most interesting point about this true story is that Dr. Morris used it as an illustration of what he called *Class B miracles*.

After recounting the story, Dr. Morris said to the assembled faculty and student body, *"Now men, don't be overly impressed by the Class B miracles."*

Dr. Morris had a dry sense of humor.

The sad truth is that many theologians throughout the history of the church have not taken any of the miracles of our Lord seriously.

Some of us were raised in churches that tried to explain away the miracles.

Some of the explanations take more faith to believe than the miracle itself.

!

An Example of explaining away miracles

1.

The Feeding of the 5000 is explained that the disciples had placed food in a secret cave and instead of Jesus multiplying the Loaves and fishes, the disciples were handing the stored food out to Jesus and the people believed he was preforming a miracles.

2. The other explanation is that the people had food but the miracle was in Jesus getting the people to share the food they had with each other.

The Jews of our Lord's day did not challenge the actual events, but rather the power by which these miracles were performed (Mark 3:22).

The heathen Greeks did not challenge the miraculous event either, but only its interpretation.

*Spinoza*, held the pantheistic view that *miracles were contrary to the nature of God.*

*Miracles were considered impossible by Spinoza because of his presuppositions*.

Skeptics, like Hume, held that miracles are simply incredible, because they contradict man's normal experience.

The most formidable argument against the miraculous and that which has generally carried most weight with modernist and humanist--is the argument which Hume stated in his "*ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING".*

*The substance of Hume's argument runs as follows:*

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water, unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them?

Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature.

It is no miracle that a man, seemingly is good health, should die on a sudden; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen.

But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country.

There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation.

(name) And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered incredible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.

*(= No evidence can ever proof a miracle.)*

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ' That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.'

When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.

I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle.

If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command by belief or opinion."

"Laws of nature are a description of what happens, not a handbook of rules to tell us what cannot happen.

In choosing his laws of nature, therefore, the scientist' should first consult history, and after deciding by historical evidence what has happened, should then choose his laws within the limits of historical actuality.

The non-Christian thinker, intent on repudiating miracles, proceeds by reverse method.

He chooses his law without regard to historical limits, and then tries to rewrite history to fit his law.

But surely this method is not only the reverse of the Christian method, it is clearly the reverse of rational procedure as well."

* *

*AN ILLUSTRATION.*

Gulliver, of Jonathan Swift's  *GULLIVER'S TRAVELS*, was said to have been shipwrecked on the island of Lilliput-an island inhabited by men six inches high.

Before Gulliver's arrival, the Lilliputians had no contact whatsoever with creatures taller than themselves.

Suppose the Lilliputians who discover Gulliver had followed Hume's reasoning; Never before had a man one foot, much less six feet tall been see-either by themselves or by anyone within the course of recorded Lilliputian history.

Which then would be more miraculous-that they themselves were deluded, or that Gulliver really existed?

Obviously the former would be the greater miracle, so Gulliver does not exist at all.

He may plead with the Lilliputians to evaluate the overwhelming, objective evidence that he DOES exist--the fact that he takes up space, eats, etc.--but to no avail.

No Lilliputians have ever seen a six foot man; therefore, Gulliver  PRIORI  does not exist.

Such an example illustrates well the fallaciousness of Hume's argument.

In order to determine what natural laws are, it is necessary for us to evaluate, without A PRIORI, the particular evidence for each alleged event, no matter how unique it is.

Since Hume doubted that nothing could be known with absolute certainty, those phenomenon which took place outside of the normal course of nature could never be accepted as true.

Schleiermacher and others explained the miraculous in terms of the unknown and misunderstood.

Our Lord's miracles were 'relative miracles,' as a savage might consider television, which he does not understand.

*The rationalistic School* would have men believe that Christ never claimed to perform any miracles.

Only those who sought the spectacular found something miraculous in the records.

Christ did not change the water to wine at Cana, but merely provided a new supply of wine.

He did not walk on the water, but on the nearby shore.

Others, Like Woolston have found the Gospel miracles to have no factual or historical validity, but are merely 'tales' which contain a much deeper spiritual truth.

Such are the views of the skeptics and critics of God's Word.

! THE TERMS EMPLOYED

The miraculous works of our Lord Jesus were communicated by the use of three primary terms, each of which accentuated one particular facet of the supernatural activity of Christ.

These three terms are found together in several passages.

*MEN OF ISRAEL, LISTEN TO THESE WORDS; JESUS THE NAZARENE, A MAN ATTESTED TO YOU BY GOD WITH MIRACLES WONDERS WHICH GOD PERFORMED THROUGH HIM IN YOUR MIDST, JUST AS YOU YOURSELVES KNOW" (ACTS 2:22, 2 COR 2:`2; 2THESSALONIANS* *2:9)*

 

1.

*The term "miracle" (**dunamis**),* emphasizes the mighty work that has been done, and in particular, the power by which it was accomplished.

The vent is described in terms of the power of God in actions.

(1) It is an act of a supernatural being.

The word */dunamis/* has the idea of a *supernatural power*.

It speaks primarily of the agent of the act.

That power may be delegated to a human agent.

The question is where did Jesus’ power to do the miracle come from.

There are two options - either from God or from Satan.

Obviously, Jesus’ power came from God.

Some suggest that Satan only imitates miracles.

I think Satan can perform miracles.

He does not have divine power, but he does have supernatural power.

So the idea from the word /dunamis/ is that there is supernatural power involved.

This word focuses attention on an event as an explosive demonstration of God’s own power.

2.

*The term "wonder" **(teras),* underscores its effect on those who are witnesses.

On many occasions, the crowds (even the disciples) were amazed and astonished by the works of our Lord (Mark 2:12; 4:41; 6:51, etc).

Origen pointed out long ago that this term 'wonder' is never employed alone in the New Testament, but always in conjunction with some other term which suggests something far greater than a mere spectacle.

(2) Another word - /terasa/ - speaks of the effect.

A miracle is an unusual event.

/Terasa/ speaks of the wonderment of the event – as in signs and wonders.

As a matter of fact, /terasa/ is always used with /semeion/.

*3.

The term "sign" (**se meion),* which focuses upon the deeper meaning of the miracle.

3) The Greek word /semeion/ means sign.

A miracle is a significant event.

It has purpose.

Matthew, Mark and Luke uses the first two more.

John uses the word /semion/, because he is *focused on the purpose* of Jesus in performing the miracles.

(4) Therefore, in our search for a definition, if we combine the ideas of these words used in the New Testament, we might come up with the following definition:

*Definition:* A miracle is an unusual and significant event (/terasa/) which requires the working of a supernatural agent (/dunamis/) and is performed for the purpose of authenticating the message or the messenger (/semeion/).

A sign is a miracle which conveys a truth about our Lord.